The Queen against The Inhabitants of Abergele
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 May 1838 |
| Date | 30 May 1838 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 887
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
Followed, R. v. Kent JJ., 1873, L. R. 8 Q. B. 307.
SAB. & E. Ml. THE QUEEN V. ABERGELE 887 [394] the queen against the inhabitants of abeegele. Wednesday, May 30th, 1838, On appeal against an order of removal, the respondents contended that no sufficient notice had been given of the grounds of appeal. The justices in sessions held, assuming that to be so, that the objection had been waived. The respondents then declined to try the appeal, and the order was quashed. The justices refused a case. The respondents then obtained a certiorari to bring up all orders of sessions made in the case, with all things touching the same. The sessions returned the orders, with the notice of grounds and other papers relating to the appeal: and the respondents moved, on the return, and on affidavit, that the order of sessions might be quashed. Held, that the return was irregular in setting out more than the order of sessions, that this Court could not look to the other matter in the return and affidavits, and that the return ought to be quashed. But, as a new return, if properly made, would not support a motion to quash the order of sessions, the Court discharged the rule without quashing the return. [Followed, B. v. Kent JJ., 1873, L. E. 8 Q. B. 307.] A certiorari issued to the justices of Denbighshire, to remove into this Court all orders, with all things touching the same, as fully, &c., as made by them between according to their respective destinations; and [393] the same cart frequently conveys at one and the same time different packages of goods addressed to many different owners. Sometimes the cart returns to the wharf, after delivering its load, without a fresh load; but more frequently it brings back on its return to the wharf fresh packages of goods, received either from the parties to whom the former load had been consigned, or from other persons in the neighbourhood, for the purpose of such fresh packages being dispatched by the canal to a variety of distant destinations. In this occupation such carts are almost daily employed. The journeys which they take are seldom more than one or two miles from the canal wharf, and in various directions; but in almost every instance they have to pass twice through one of the toll-gates belonging to this road, viz. once in going from the wharf and once in returning to it; and they frequently take not less than three or four journeys from the wharf and back again in the course...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King (Martin) v Mahony
...L. R. 5 P. C. 417. (3) 1 Q. B. 66. (4) 10 B. & S. 119. (5) 14 L. T. (N. S.) 598. (6) 15 Q. B. D. 122, at p. 144. (7) 15 Q. B. 121. (8) 8 A. & E. 394. (1) 22 L. R. Ir. (2) 8 T. R. 588. (3) 1 Q. B. 66. (4) 3 E. & B. 607. (5) 2 H. & N. 219. (6) 28 L. R. Ir. 440. (7) 22 L. R. Ir. 487. (8) [1906......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Rotherham
...which the Court cannot look at in this proceeding. No case is sent up, and the examinations cannot be gone into ; Begina v. Abergele (8 A. & E. 394), Begina v. Justices of Cheshire (8 A. & E. 398). [Coleridge J. Want of jurisdiction might be shewn otherwise than by the contents of the order......